Bombay High Court
SHAIKH NOOR SHAIKH BASHU ALIAS BASHA AND ANOTHERversusVISHNU PANDURANG MUNDE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The amendment to the written statement should have been allowed; the trial court’s order rejecting it was set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, Shaikh Noor Shaikh Bashu and another, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur, which rejected their application to amend their written statement in a suit concerning ownership of land in Thetegavhan, Beed. After the evidence was closed, the plaintiff filed applications with the Tahsildar, leading to Panchanama surveys in April and June 2022 that showed the plaintiff was not in possession of the land. Relying on these subsequent developments, the petitioners sought to amend their written statement, but the trial court refused, citing lack of due diligence. The High Court, after reviewing the application and the new evidence, held that the trial court should not have rejected the amendment and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the order quashed, and the petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to a written statement may be permitted after the evidence has been closed, based on subsequent developments such as a Panchanama indicating the plaintiff's lack of possession.
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- written statement
- Civil Procedure Code
- Panchanama
- possession
- COVID-19 adjournments
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9636
1 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
102 WRIT PETITION NO. 8237 OF 2023
SHAIKH NOOR SHAIKH BASHU ALIAS BASHA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
VISHNU PANDURANG MUNDE AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Ankush Nivrutti Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Nilkanth P. Bangar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the
order dated 02.02.2023, passed below Exhibit-73 by the learned Joint
Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur, District Beed in R.C.S. No.31 of
2014, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner seeking
amendment in the written statement came to be rejected.
3. The Respondent No.1/original plaintiff, filed R.C.S. No.31 of
2014 for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction and rest of
the suit land bearing No.21, admeasuring 12 Hector 40 Are to the
extent of 3 Hectors situated at Thetegavhan, Taluka Dharur, District
Beed. The petitioners filed a written statement, resisted the suit and
denied the possession of Respondent No. 1/original plaintiff over the
suit land. The evidence of both the parties was over and when the
2 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023
matter was posted for argument, due to pandemic COVID-19, the
matter was adjourned from time to time.
4. In the month of April 2022 and June 2022, the respondent
no. 1/original plaintiff filed an application before the Tahsildar and
pursuant to that Revenue Authorities conducted Panchanama on
27.04.2022 and 22.06.2022, which clearly indicated that the
respondent no. 1/original plaintiff was not in possession and,
therefore, in view of the subsequent developments, the petitioners filed
an application and sought amendment in a written statement. The said
application was resisted by the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff
contending that the evidence has been already recorded and the matter
was posted for argument and there was no due diligence. After
considering the application and the contention raised by the plaintiff-
respondent No.1, learned Trial Court rejected the application.
5. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and after going through the application filed by the Petitioners, I find
that though the evidence was over, the subsequent developments had
occurred due to which the respondent no. 1/original plaintiff filed an
application before the Revenue Authorities. Pursuant to that
application Panchnama was carried out and accordingly, the
Petitioners/Original Defendant No. 1 and 2 filed an application and
sought amendment in a written statement and, therefore, the learned
3 of 3 102-WP.8237.2023
Trial Court ought not have rejected the said application.
6. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by setting
aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
7. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 02.02.2023, passed below Exhibit-73 by the learned Joint Civil
Judge Junior Division, Dharur, District Beed in R.C.S. No.31 of 2014 is
quashed and set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
8. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount in this Court
within a period of two weeks from today, which shall be transmitted to
the Shantivan, Bhavani Vidyarthi Kalyan Pratishthan, SBI Branch
Shirur (Kasar), District Beed, A/c. No.33446000963, IFSC Code
No.SBIN0005995.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…